User talk:67.170.169.30

John Hurt

Read the reference in the article. A member of the production team has told us something of the role he plays. That is not, by any definition, rumour. Stephenb (Talk) 20:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to New Girl (TV series) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• will be reprising his role as Coach for at least four episodes in the upcoming third season.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/15/damon-wayans-jr-new-girl-season-3_n_3600825.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Wolverine (film). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Cyclone is correct.

If this is reaching the person who edited The Wizard of Oz, you state erroneously that "Baum used the term tornado" when in fact Baum used the term cyclone (see Chapter 1 - The Cyclone). Next time please don't make untrue statements that can easily be refuted. —Prhartcom (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Oz setting

The Great and Powerful Oz is set in 1905, and may be intended to take place 20 years before the events of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, but putting those two sentences together with the phrase "the original Wizard of Oz novel" creates the misleading implication that The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is set in 1925. That may be the intention of the filmmakers, but it's absurd to suggest that it was the intention of L. Frank Baum, writing in 1900. Rather than reverting again, it would be better if you explained why you think this clarification is unhelpful on the article's talk page, where I started a discussion section for this very topic. If you object to the parenthetical phrase I added, perhaps you can suggest an alternate wording which avoids this implication.—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm Kirachinmoku. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Peter Cushing, with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. KiraChinmoku _{(T, ¤)} 17:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, 67.170.169.30. You have new messages at Kirachinmoku's talk page.
Message added 09:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

replied KiraChinmoku _{(T, ¤)} 09:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Law & Order, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bubble magazine

Here is the description on what is a reliable source. I reviewed the author Carrie Anne Walton[1] and she is still an undergraduate, not a professional reviewer. That makes her an unreliable source. The magazine The Bubble doesn't even have it's own web domain but is so small of circulation it is using the thebubble.org.uk shared domain. There is another The Bubble magazine coming top in Google searches. If we asked the Wikipedia reliable source community to evaluate this source I would think it would get rejected SO I cited who called the film a cult classic as a compromise in the article. The other option is to delete the source. If you can find a more reliable source with a professional journalist or reviewer in a wider circulation source then by all means do so and I won't have a problem. 97.85.168.22 (talk) 05:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)